Jump to content

Man City given 2yr CL ban


chubbs

Recommended Posts

Just now, Zorro said:

What’s Harry Maguire got to do with Liverpool supposedly only spending £30 million. 

Liverpool spent £223m ($288m) in that regard, with Alisson Becker, Naby Keita, Fabinho and Xherdan Shaqiri all joining the club during the accounting period.” - this didn’t happen on Planet Guff. 

I’m comparing our recruitment to other elite clubs. 
 

Out of the £223 million how much did we make from sales? That’s happened on planet earth. You can’t just say that it doesn’t matter, how does it not? If we sell players on for a profit we are inclined to spend the money? No? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

I’m comparing our recruitment to other elite clubs. 
 

Out of the £223 million how much did we make from sales? That’s happened on planet earth. You can’t just say that it doesn’t matter, how does it not? If we sell players on for a profit we are inclined to spend the money? No? 

City sell players too £45 million for Sane just weeks ago is an example. You’re misplaced belief that Liverpool aren’t a cheque book club is based on Barcelona significantly overpaying for one player. However it doesn’t even come close to covering what Liverpool have spent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zorro said:

City sell players too £45 million for Sane just weeks ago is an example. You’re misplaced belief that Liverpool aren’t a cheque book club is based on Barcelona significantly overpaying for one player. However it doesn’t even come close to covering what Liverpool have spent. 

Zorro, our net spend is 30-40 million max. That’s a fact. I’m no lying to you. The point however is your trying to say that doesn’t matter. How does it not? 
 

Another example would be selling Ibe and Solanke to Bournemouth for £40 million.

 

Another example is selling ward, the 5th choice keeper at the time for another £20 million. 
 

These are facts, and we are well within our right to spend that money to improve our squad. We are laughed at, ridiculed as such for spending £75 million on Van Dijk, who’s laughing now? We have bought the right players at the either time and vice versa with our sales. It’s a club that’s well managed. Man City aren’t, you’ve named one played they have sold for £40 million. 
THEY PAID 37 million for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zorro said:

Klopp has spent £425 million to turn a team who threw away a league title, into a team capable of winning the weakest English premier league in years. And it only took him four years. 

The weakest English premier league in years lol last summer was the biggest amount spent in a summer EVER from all prem clubs I believe. Away and bury your head in the sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

Zorro, our net spend is 30-40 million max. That’s a fact. I’m no lying to you. The point however is your trying to say that doesn’t matter. How does it not? 
 

Another example would be selling Ibe and Solanke to Bournemouth for £40 million.

 

Another example is selling ward, the 5th choice keeper at the time for another £20 million. 
 

These are facts, and we are well within our right to spend that money to improve our squad. We are laughed at, ridiculed as such for spending £75 million on Van Dijk, who’s laughing now? We have bought the right players at the either time and vice versa with our sales. It’s a club that’s well managed. Man City aren’t, you’ve named one played they have sold for £40 million. 
THEY PAID 37 million for him.

Klopp has spent £425 million and brought in £353 million. Almost half of that was from Barcelona overpaying for one player. Bournemouth only paid £19 million for Solanke and Leicester paid £12.5 for Ward btw. 

Edited by Zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

The weakest English premier league in years lol last summer was the biggest amount spent in a summer EVER from all prem clubs I believe. Away and bury your head in the sand.

Have you heard the term football transfer inflation? Anyway transfer inflation was running at 31% last season. That’s why more was spent. It doesn’t mean the quality was better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorro said:

What’s Harry Maguire got to do with Liverpool supposedly only spending £30 million. 

Liverpool spent £223m ($288m) in that regard, with Alisson Becker, Naby Keita, Fabinho and Xherdan Shaqiri all joining the club during the accounting period.” - this didn’t happen on Planet Guff. 

It was someone else that spent it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

Aye go check the wages. That will end this discussion, in my favour. Thanks 

The latest figures I can find suggest Liverpool only spent £5 million less than Man City on wages. That equates to one Oxlade-Chamberlain type player. If you’ve got £30 million lying about to buy them in the first place. When you consider Man City were Champions in that period and received more in prize money than Liverpool, the gulf in spending is negligible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dieter's Heeder said:

Which part of this is a victory for money at power? The fact the club have been proven in an independent court tribunal to have acted within the rules? Would you rather injustice was served because it fits your narrative? 

Injustice ? Just because it couldn't be proven to have happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you honestly think that the money that is being pumped into the richest clubs in Europe is above board and that they don't have accountants and lawyers finding ways to bend the rules ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Wrangodog said:

Injustice ? Just because it couldn't be proven to have happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you honestly think that the money that is being pumped into the richest clubs in Europe is above board and that they don't have accountants and lawyers finding ways to bend the rules ?  

That's simply not true. I said it didn't happen, because it didn't happen. Here's a link to the exact wording CAS (who I repeat, are a completely independent tribunal service) have used in their  media release regarding exoneration of that particular charge. 

As for the second part of your post, that's really neither here nor there without any evidence whatsoever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dieter's Heeder said:

That's simply not true. I said it didn't happen, because it didn't happen. Here's a link to the exact wording CAS (who I repeat, are a completely independent tribunal service) have used in their  media release regarding exoneration of that particular charge. 

As for the second part of your post, that's really neither here nor there without any evidence whatsoever. 

They had to say that because they couldn't prove it, take your sky blue hat off for a minute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Wrangodog said:

They had to say that because they couldn't prove it, take your sky blue hat off for a minute. 

'They' didn't have to say that at all, since it wasn't up to 'them' to prove anything. CAS weren't the ones charging City with anything, UEFA were. 

In conclusion, CAS could have said that they weren't satisfied with the evidence provided by UEFA. They didn't. They said that it did not happen. 

It's nothing to do with sky blue hats, it's documented in black and white. Members of a highly qualified independent tribunal service said it didn't happen, but someone on the killiefc fans forum reckons it must have and anyone who says otherwise must be bias. Am I getting this right? 

Edited by Dieter's Heeder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dieter's Heeder said:

'They' didn't have to say that at all, since it wasn't up to 'them' to prove anything. CAS weren't the ones charging City with anything, UEFA were. 

In conclusion, CAS could have said that they weren't satisfied with the evidence provided by UEFA. They didn't. They said that it did not happen. 

It's nothing to do with sky blue hats, it's documented in black and white. Members of a highly qualified independent tribunal service said it didn't happen, but someone on the killiefc fans forum reckons it must have and anyone who says otherwise must be bias. Am I getting this right? 

Following the hearing, the CAS Panel deliberated and concluded that the decision issued on 
14 February 2020 by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB should be set aside and replaced by the 
following:
a.) MCFC has contravened Article 56 of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
b.) MCFC shall pay a fine of EUR 10,000,000 to the UEFA, within 30 days as from the date of 
issuance of the arbitral award.
The CAS award emphasized that most of the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber 
of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred. As the charges with respect to any dishonest 
concealment of equity funding were clearly more significant violations than obstructing the CFCB’s 
investigations, it was not appropriate to impose a ban on participating in UEFA’s club competitions 
for MCFC’s failure to cooperate with the CFCB’s investigations alone.

So they fined MC €10m for being completely innocent ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Wrangodog said:

Following the hearing, the CAS Panel deliberated and concluded that the decision issued on 
14 February 2020 by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB should be set aside and replaced by the 
following:
a.) MCFC has contravened Article 56 of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
b.) MCFC shall pay a fine of EUR 10,000,000 to the UEFA, within 30 days as from the date of 
issuance of the arbitral award.
The CAS award emphasized that most of the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber 
of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred. As the charges with respect to any dishonest 
concealment of equity funding were clearly more significant violations than obstructing the CFCB’s 
investigations, it was not appropriate to impose a ban on participating in UEFA’s club competitions 
for MCFC’s failure to cooperate with the CFCB’s investigations alone.

So they fined MC €10m for being completely innocent ? 

They fined mcfc 10m for being obstructive towards UEFA in their investigation. The value of 10m, the document states, is relevant to the financial status of the club in question. So for instance, had tranmere rovers been found guilty of the same thing, the fine wouldn't have been anywhere near 10m.

The point is, the charge of being obstructive is nigh on irrelevant. I think the club would rather take the 10m on the chin than work with UEFA on a case which in the own words of mcfc was "initiated by UEFA, prosecuted by UEFA and judged by UEFA." It's easy to understand why they wouldn't work with them in such a situation. Please also remind yourself of the members on the UEFA board and the football clubs which they also represent, either currently or previously. 

The actual charge itself of any kind of financial doping has been completely exonerated.

 

Edited by Dieter's Heeder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dieter's Heeder said:

They fined mcfc 10m for being obstructive towards UEFA in their investigation. The value of 10m, the document states, is relevant to the financial status of the club in question. So for instance, had tranmere rovers been found guilty of the same thing, the fine wouldn't have been anywhere near 10m.

The point is, the charge of being obstructive is nigh on irrelevant. I think the club would rather take the 10m on the chin than work with UEFA on a case which in the own words of mcfc was "initiated by UEFA, prosecuted by UEFA and judged by UEFA." It's easy to understand why they wouldn't work with them in such a situation. Please also remind yourself of the members on the UEFA board and the football clubs which they also represent, either currently or previously. 

The actual charge itself of any kind of financial doping has been completely exonerated.

 

fining Man City is like fining trainers 20p ffs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zorro said:

It’s less than Mo Salah’s wages for a season. A whole club being fined less than the salary of one player is nothing. 

Mo salah plays for Liverpool. Liverpool weren’t fined. Use a city’s players wages of under 10 million. Or are you struggling to find one? Check their reserves or their woman’s team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...